29 -i A VINDICATION OF THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON FIAT LUX.
we could once find our way out of this maze of uncertainties. Tliis is hut a sad disquisition after principles of faith, to settle men in re- ligion hy 'them ; and yet, if we should suppose this also, we are far enough from our journey's end. The present bishop of Rome is as yet behind the curtain, neither can he appear upon the stage until he be ushered in by one pretence more of the same nature with them that went before. And this is, —
V. " That some one must needs succeed Peter in his episcopacy."' But why so ? why was it not needful that one should succeed him in his apostleship ? Why was it not needful that Paul should have a successor as well as Peter ? and John as well as either of them ? "Because," you say, "that was necessary for the church ; not so these." But who told you so ? Where is the proof of what you aver ? Who made you judges of what is necessary and what is not necessary for the church of Christ, when himself is silent ? And why is not the succession of an apostle necessary as well as of such a bishop as you fancy ? Had it not been better to have had one still residing in the church of whose infallibility there could have been no doubt or ques- tion,— one that had the power of working miracles, that should have no need to scare the people by shaking fire out of his sleeve, as your Pope Gregory VII. was wont to do, if Cardinal Benno may be believed? But you have now carried us quite off from the Scripture, and story, and probable conjectures, to attend unto you whilst you give the Lord Jesus prudential advice about what is necessary for his church. " It must needs be so, it is meet it should be so," is the best of your proof in this matter; only, your " Fratres Walenburgici " add, " that never any man ordained the government of a community more weakly than Christ must be supposed to have done the government of his church, if he have not appointed such a successor to Peter as you imagine." But it is easy for you to assert what you please of this nature, and as easy for any one to reject what you so assert, if he please. These things are without the verge of Christian religion, — chimeras^ towers and palaces in the air. But what must St Peter be succeeded in? "His episcopacy." And what therewithal? " His authority, power, jurisdiction over all churches in the world, with an unerring- judgment in matters of faith." But all these belonged unto Peter, as far as ever they belonged unto him, as he was an apostle, long before you fancy him to have been a bishop : as, then, his episcopacy came without these things, so, for aught you know, it might go without them. This is a matter of huge importance in that system of principles which you tender unto us to bring us unto settlement in religion and the unity of faith. Would you would consider a little how you may give some tolerable appearance of proof unto that which the Scripture is so utterly silent in; yea, which lies against the whole economy of the
PRINCIPLES OF PAPISTS ON THE UNITY OF FAITH. 2.95
Lord Jesus Christ in his ordering of his church, as delivered unto us therein. " Die ahquem, die, Quintihane, colorera." But we come now to the pope, whom here we first find " hitentem post principia," and coming forth iiira itoXkni <po(.vTac!iai with his claim. For you say,—
VI. " That the bishop of Rome is the man that thus succeeds Peter in his episcopacy; which, though it were settled at Rome, was over the whole catholic church." So you say, and so you profess yourselves to believe. And we desire that you would not take it amiss, if we desire to know upon what grounds you do so ; being un- willing to cast away all consideration, that we may embrace a fana- tical " credo" in this unlikely business. We desire therefore to know who appointed that there should be any succession? who, that the bishop of Rome should be this successor ? Did Jesus Christ do it ? We may justly expect you should say he did ; but if you do, we desire to know when, where, how, seeing the Scripture is utterly silent of any such thing. Did St Peter himself do it ? Pray, manifest unto us that by the appointment of Jesus Christ he had power so to do; and that, secondly, he actually did so. Neither of these can you prove, or produce any testimony worth crediting in confirmation of it. Did it necessarily follow from hence, because that was the place where Peter died ? But this was accidental, a thing that Peter thought not of; for you say that a few days before his death, he was leaving that place. Besides, according to this insinuation, why did not every apostle leave a successor behind him in the j)lace where he died, and that by virtue of his dying in that place ? Or produce you any patent granted to Peter in especial, that where he died, there he should leave a successor behind him ? But it seems the whole weight of your faith is laid upon a matter of fact accidentally fallen out, yea, and that very uncertain whether ever it fell out or no. Show us any thing of the will and institution of Christ in tliis matter; as that Peter should go to Rome, that he should fix his seat there, that he should die there, that he should have a successor, that the bishop of Rome should be his successor, tliat unto this successor I know not what nor how many privileges should be conveyed. All these are arbitrary sup7if/,ara, inventions, that men may multiply "in infinitum" at their pleasure; for what should set bounds to the imaginations of men when ouce they cast off all reverence of Christ and his truth ? Once more: Why did not Peter fix a seat and leave a successor at Antioch, and in other places, where he abode, and preached, and exercised episcopal power without all question ? W^as it because he died at Rome ? This is to acknowledge that the whole Papacy is built, as was said, upon an accidental matter of fact, and that sup- posed, not proved. Farther: if he must be supposed to succeed